Supreme Court Orders Forced Eviction Of Tenant Who Defied Undertaking To Vacate, Warns Him Of Jail
The Supreme Court ordered the forced eviction of a tenant from premises in Salem, Tamil Nadu, after finding him guilty of willful disobedience of the undertaking given to vacate the premises.
A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi directed the Principal District Munsif, Salem to take possession with police assistance and to take the 84-year-old tenant named Selvaraju into custody if he resists. The Court also imposed ₹10,000 per month as occupation charges from January 2024.
The bench directed police to secure a fresh undertaking from Selvaraju for his appearance on the next hearing. If he again defaults, the Court warned it would issue non-bailable warrants and send him to jail with an appropriate sentence.
"In case, he would not appear or he is not complying with the order of this Court, we shall be constrained to take him into custody by issuing non-bailable warrant immediately and sent him to jail awarding appropriate sentence."
Rejecting his pleas citing age and ill-health, the Court said Selvaraju was making “unreasonable” excuses to delay compliance. It warned that any further default would invite non-bailable warrants and jail.
The case will be heard again on October 27.
Selvaraju's Special Leave Petition [SLP(C) No. 13281/2023] challenging his eviction had been dismissed by the top court on August 14, 2023. While granting him time to vacate by December 31, 2023, the Court had imposed conditions including payment of arrears, filing of an undertaking, and refraining from creating third-party interests.
However, the contemnor neither filed the undertaking nor vacated the premises, prompting the contempt proceedings.
Despite repeated notices, Selvaraju failed to appear before the Court. Even after bailable warrants were issued and executed in August 2025, he failed to honor his undertaking to appear on September 19.
He had sent letters citing old age, ill-health, and financial incapacity as reasons for his absence. The bench rejected these excuses as “unreasonable and unacceptable,” noting that they were mere pretexts to avoid compliance.
“The contemnor does not wish to vacate the premises and wants to take pretext either on the ground of age or plead the case on merits. These grounds are insignificant in the face of deliberate non-compliance,” the Court observed.
T. Harish Kumar, AOR appeared for the appellant.
JAYAKANDAMMAL v. A.SELVARAJU | CONMT.PET.(C) No. 44/2025 in SLP(C) No. 13281/2023